Final update

Translation by Nadebula on Jun 29th

1 files changed, 221 insertions, 18 deletions

diff --git a/docs/misinterpreting-copyright.md b/docs/misinterpreting-copyright.md
index e5438c8..b91c4e1 100644
--- a/docs/misinterpreting-copyright.md
+++ b/docs/misinterpreting-copyright.md
@@ -458,6 +458,8 @@ get it. As a means of promoting progress, it is self-defeating.
 
 ### The Results of the Three Errors {#the-results-of-the-three-errors .subheading}
 
+### 三大错误的后果
+
 The current trend in copyright legislation is to hand publishers broader
 powers for longer periods of time. The conceptual basis of copyright, as
 it emerges distorted from the series of errors, rarely offers a basis
@@ -465,16 +467,28 @@ for saying no. Legislators give lip service to the idea that copyright
 serves the public, while in fact giving publishers whatever they ask
 for.
 
+当前的版权立法趋势是赋予出版商更宽泛的、持续时间更长的权力。而版权的概念
+基础自从被这一系列错误所扭曲之后，几乎没有给读者留下任何说不的权利。立法
+者大肆鼓吹版权服务于公众这一理念，而实际上却一直在赋予出版商它们想要的任
+何东西。
+
 For example, here is what Senator Hatch said when introducing S.
 483,[(3)](#FOOT3) a 1995 bill to increase the term of copyright by 20
 years:
 
+例如，参议员 Hatch 在介绍 S.483 法案时如是说，这条于 1995 年通过的法案将
+版权的期限延长了 20 年。
+
 > I believe we are now at such a point with respect to the question of
 > whether the current term of copyright adequately protects the
 > interests of authors and the related question of whether the term of
 > protection continues to provide a sufficient incentive for the
 > creation of new works of authorship.[(4)](#FOOT4)
 
+> 我相信我们现在需要搞清楚这个问题：当前的版权期限是否足以保护作者的利益，
+> 以及与之相关的另一个问题：当前的版权保护期限是否足以继续为作者创作新作
+> 品提供足够的激励。[(4)](#FOOT4)
+
 This bill extended the copyright on already published works written
 since the 1920s. This change was a giveaway to publishers with no
 possible benefit to the public, since there is no way to retroactively
@@ -483,6 +497,12 @@ public a freedom that is meaningful today—the freedom to redistribute
 books from that era. Note the use of the propaganda term,
 “protect,”[(5)](#FOOT5) which embodies the second of the three errors.
 
+这一法案延长了那些自 20 世纪 20 年代以后创作的已发表的作品的版权期限。这
+一改变是对出版商的慷慨赠予，而不可能为公众带来任何好处，由于现在不可能以
+任何方式逆动地增加当时的出版量。然而，这剥夺了公众的一项在今天看来非常有
+意义的自由——再分发当时出版的作品的自由。注意，他们所鼓吹的“保护”[(5)](#FOOT5)
+一词的用法中包含了三大错误中的第二项。
+
 The bill also extended the copyrights of works yet to be written. For
 works made for hire, copyright would last 95 years instead of the
 present 75 years. Theoretically this would increase the incentive to
@@ -490,6 +510,11 @@ write new works; but any publisher that claims to need this extra
 incentive should be required to substantiate the claim with projected
 balance sheets for 75 years in the future.
 
+这条法案同时延长了将要被创作的作品的版权期限，对于出资聘用的作者创作的作
+品，版权期限将会持续 95 年而非当前的 75 年。理论上这将会增加对创作新作品
+的激励；但是，任何宣称需要这项额外刺激的出版商应当被要求以未来 75 年预期
+的财务状况表来证明这一要求的合理性。
+
 Needless to say, Congress did not question the publishers’ arguments: a
 law extending copyright was enacted in 1998. It was officially called
 the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, named after one of its
@@ -498,6 +523,12 @@ Copyright Act, since we presume its real motive was to prevent the
 copyright on the appearance of Mickey Mouse from expiring. Bono’s widow,
 who served the rest of his term, made this statement:
 
+不言而喻的是，国会并不会质疑出版商的论证：一项版权延长法律于 1998 年实施。
+它的官方名称是 Sonny Bono 版权期限延长法案，它是以它的一位在当年早些时候
+去世的支持者命名的。我们通常称之为米老鼠版权法案，由于我们认为它的真实动
+机是防止米老鼠的形象的版权过期。Bono 的遗孀以他的名义完成了剩下的工作，并
+作了如下声明：
+
 > Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last
 > forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the
 > Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our
@@ -506,16 +537,29 @@ who served the rest of his term, made this statement:
 > less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next
 > Congress.[(7)](#FOOT7)
 
+> 事实上，Sonny 希望版权保护期限持续到永远。我被一位工作人员告知这样一种
+> 改变将会违反宪法。我现在邀请各位与我共同努力，以所有可能的方式强化我们
+> 的版权法。你们应当知道，还有 Jack Valenti [(6)](#FOOT6)的提案建议版权的
+> 保护期限为比永远少一天。也许委员会可以期待下一届国会。[(7)](#FOOT7)
+
 The Supreme Court later heard a case that sought to overturn the law on
 the grounds that the retroactive extension fails to serve the
 Constitution’s goal of promoting progress. The court responded by
 abdicating its responsibility to judge the question; on copyright, the
 Constitution requires only lip service.
 
+美国最高法院随后听说一个案例，这一案例试图在根本上推翻该版权法律，由于反
+动地延长版权期限未能符合宪法关于促进进步的终极目标。法庭以放弃其判决该问
+题的责任作为回应；对于版权，宪法只需求宣传工具。
+
 Another law, passed in 1997, made it a felony to make sufficiently many
 copies of any published work, even if you give them away to friends just
 to be nice. Previously this was not a crime in the US at all.
 
+另一条于 1997 年通过的法律使得为任何已发表作品复制达到一定数量的副本成为
+一项重罪，即使您将它们送给遵纪守法的朋友。而在此之前，这在美国甚至不是一
+项罪行。
+
 An even worse law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), was
 designed to bring back what was then called “copy protection”—now known
 as DRM (Digital Restrictions Management)[(8)](#FOOT8)—which users
@@ -527,6 +571,14 @@ they can impose any restrictions whatsoever on the use of a work, and
 these restrictions take the force of law provided the work contains some
 sort of encryption or license manager to enforce them.
 
+一条更坏的法律，数字千年版权法案（DMCA），被设计为重新带回一种当时被称为
+“防复制保护”的东西——现在称之为数字版权管理（DRM）[(8)](#FOOT8)——这是一种
+已经被用户所唾弃的东西，它使得破解这些限制规则，甚至只是发表关于如何破解
+它们的信息成为犯罪行为。这条法律应当被称作“媒体公司支配法案”（Domination 
+by Media Corporations Act），由于它事实上赋予了出版商编写自家版权法的权力。
+它宣称它们可以对作品的使用强行施加任何限制，并且这些限制将具有法律效力，
+如果该作品包含某种加密或者许可证管理器之类的强制实行措施。
+
 One of the arguments offered for this bill was that it would implement a
 recent treaty to increase copyright powers. The treaty was promulgated
 by the World “Intellectual Property”[(9)](#FOOT9) Organization, an
@@ -536,6 +588,12 @@ only increases copyright power, whether it serves the public interest in
 any country is doubtful. In any case, the bill went far beyond what the
 treaty required.
 
+用于支持该法案的一种论证是它可以实现一种现代条约以增加版权权力。该条约由
+世界“知识产权”组织（WIPO）[(9)](#FOOT9)所大肆宣扬，这一组织被版权与专利
+持有人的利益所支配，并且得到了克林顿政府以施压方式提供的支持；由于该条约
+只是强化了版权权力，至于它在任何国家是否有利于公众利益尚存争议。无论如何，
+这条法案的效力大大超出了这项条约所要求的。
+
 Libraries were a key source of opposition to this bill, especially to
 the aspects that block the forms of copying that are considered fair
 use. How did the publishers respond? Former representative Pat
@@ -545,6 +603,12 @@ were\] asking for.” Since the libraries were asking only to preserve
 part of the status quo, one might respond by wondering how the
 publishers had survived until the present day.
 
+图书馆曾经是反对此法案的重要来源，尤其针对该法案中禁止某种可被视为合理使
+用的复制行为这一方面。那么出版商一方是如何回应的呢？前代理人 Pat Schroeder，
+现在作为美国出版商协会（AAP）的说客如是说：“出版商与图书馆的诉求不共戴天”。
+由于图书馆的诉求只是维持部分现状，人们可以以此作为回应：出版商到底是怎样
+活到今天的。
+
 Congressman Barney Frank, in a meeting with me and others who opposed
 this bill, showed how far the US Constitution’s view of copyright has
 been disregarded. He said that new powers, backed by criminal penalties,
@@ -557,11 +621,22 @@ identified with the “creative people” it hires, copyright has been
 treated as its entitlement, and the Constitution has been turned upside
 down.
 
+国会议员 Barney Frank 在一次与我和其他反对该法案的人士举行会谈时，展示了
+美国宪法中关于版权的观点在多大程度上被无视了。他宣称有犯罪刑罚所支撑的新
+的版权权力是急迫需要的，由于“电影行业感到担忧”，同样还有“音乐行业”和其他
+“行业”。我问他：“但是，这是为了公众的利益吗？”他如此回应：“你有什么资格谈
+公众利益？那些富有创造性的人们不需要为了公众利益而牺牲他们的权利！”“行业”
+被视同它所雇佣的“富有创造性的人们”，版权被视为它应有的权利，而宪法的本意
+则被彻底颠倒了。
+
 The DMCA was enacted in 1998. As enacted, it says that fair use remains
 nominally legitimate, but allows publishers to prohibit all software or
 hardware that you could practice it with. Effectively, fair use is
 prohibited.
 
+DMCA 于 1998 年被实施。随之，它宣称合理使用在名义上尚属合法，但它允许出版
+商禁止所有那些您可能对其进行合理使用的软硬件。事实上，合理使用已被禁止。
+
 Based on this law, the movie industry has imposed censorship on free
 software for reading and playing DVDs, and even on the information about
 how to read them. In April 2001, Professor Edward Felten of Princeton
@@ -570,6 +645,11 @@ Industry Association of America (RIAA) into withdrawing a scientific
 paper stating what he had learned about a proposed encryption system for
 restricting access to recorded music.
 
+基于这一法律，电影业对用于读取和播放数码多功能影音光盘（DVD）的自由软件，
+乃至关于如何读取它们的信息强行实施了审查。2001 年四月，普林斯顿大学 Edward 
+Felten 教授受到来自美国唱片业协会（RIAA）的法律诉讼的威胁以撤销一篇关于他
+从一种被提议用于限制对录制音乐访问的加密系统中所学到的东西的科研论文。
+
 We are also beginning to see e-books that take away many of readers’
 traditional freedoms—for instance, the freedom to lend a book to your
 friend, to sell it to a used book store, to borrow it from a library, to
@@ -578,10 +658,19 @@ freedom to read it twice. Encrypted e-books generally restrict all these
 activities—you can read them only with special secret software designed
 to restrict you.
 
+我们同样开始见到那些剥夺了众多读者的传统阅读自由的电子书——例如，将书借给
+您的朋友，或是卖给二手书店，或是从图书馆借阅，或是无需将您的名字告知公司
+数据库便可购书，甚至是再次阅读某本书等等这些自由。加密的电子书通常限制了
+以上这些活动——您只能利用某种被设计用于限制您的自由的特殊私密软件来读取它
+们。
+
 I will never buy one of these encrypted, restricted e-books, and I hope
 you will reject them too. If an e-book doesn’t give you the same
 freedoms as a traditional paper book, don’t accept it!
 
+我坚决不会购买任何一部这种加密、受限的电子书，并且我也希望您也能拒绝它们。
+如果一部电子书不能赋予您与纸版书相同的自由，就不要接受它！
+
 Anyone independently releasing software that can read restricted e-books
 risks prosecution. A Russian programmer, Dmitry Sklyarov, was arrested
 in 2001 while visiting the US to speak at a conference, because he had
@@ -589,6 +678,11 @@ written such a program in Russia, where it was lawful to do so. Now
 Russia is preparing a law to prohibit it too, and the European Union
 recently adopted one.
 
+任何人擅自发布可用于阅读受限的电子书的软件将面临被起诉的风险。一位俄国程
+序员 Dmitry Sklyarov 在于 2001 年访问美国期间参加一次会议演讲时被逮捕，
+由于此人在俄国编写了一款这样的程序，而这当时在俄国尚属合法。现在俄国正准
+备通过一条法律以禁止这种行为，而欧盟最近已经采纳了这样的一条法律。
+
 Mass-market e-books have been a commercial failure so far, but not
 because readers chose to defend their freedom; they were unattractive
 for other reasons, such as that computer display screens are not easy
@@ -601,6 +695,15 @@ freedom in order to keep it. Meanwhile, e-books are making inroads in
 niches: NYU and other dental schools require students to buy their
 textbooks in the form of restricted e-books.
 
+面向大量最终用户销售的电子书目前看来在商业上并不很成功，但这并非由于读者
+选择捍卫他们的自由；它们是由于其他原因不受欢迎，例如计算机屏幕并不是一种
+适合于轻松阅读的平面。我们不可能长期依赖这种好的缺陷来保护我们自己；用于
+促销电子书的下一步尝试是使用电子纸——一种像书本一样的东西，可向其中下载加
+密、受限的电子书。如果这种像纸一样的平面能够提供比现在的显示屏更多的吸引
+力，我们将不得不捍卫我们的自由以便继续拥有它。与此同时，电子书正在利基市
+场（niche market）中觅得商机：纽约大学（NYU）和其他牙科学校要求其学生以
+受限的电子书的格式购买它们的教材。
+
 The media companies are not satisfied yet. In 2001, Disney-funded
 Senator Hollings proposed a bill called the “Security Systems Standards
 and Certification Act” (SSSCA),[(10)](#FOOT10) which would require all
@@ -615,10 +718,24 @@ certain job. Prohibition of other jobs will surely follow. If the FCC
 adopts this rule, existing free software such as GNU Radio would be
 censored.
 
+媒体公司对此仍不满足。2001 年，由迪士尼赞助的参议员 Hollings 提议了一条
+“安全系统标准与认证法案”）（SSSCA）[(10)](#FOOT10)，它要求所有计算机（及
+其他数字录制与回放设备）必须带有政府强制要求的限制复制系统。这是它们的最
+终目的，但它们的日程上的第一件事是禁止任何可以调谐数字高清电视（HDTV）的
+设备，除非它被设计为使得公众不可能对其进行“恶意篡改”（即以公众自己的目的
+进行修改）。由于自由软件是用户可以修改的，我们在此首次遭遇了这样一种被提
+议的法律，它将明确禁止自由软件被用于某种特定任务。可以预见对于其他任务的
+自由软件禁令也一定会随之而来。如果美国联邦通信委员会（FCC）采纳这一规则，
+现存的自由软件诸如 GNU Radio 将会被审查。
+
 To block these bills and rules requires political action.[(11)](#FOOT11)
 
+阻止这些法案和规则的通过和实施需要政治行动。[(11)](#FOOT11)
+
 ### Finding the Right Bargain {#finding-the-right-bargain .subheading}
 
+### 寻找正确的版权交易
+
 What is the proper way to decide copyright policy? If copyright is a
 bargain made on behalf of the public, it should serve the public
 interest above all. The government’s duty when selling the public’s
@@ -626,9 +743,17 @@ freedom is to sell only what it must, and sell it as dearly as possible.
 At the very least, we should pare back the extent of copyright as much
 as possible while maintaining a comparable level of publication.
 
+那么，决定版权政策的恰当方式是什么呢？如果版权是一笔以公众为名进行的交易，
+它应当把服务于公众利益放在至高无上的地位。政府在消费公众自由的时候应尽的
+职责是只去花费那部分必须花费的，并且要换取尽可能多的回报。最起码的要求是，
+我们应当尽可能减少版权权力的程度，同时又能维持与之相适应的出版量级别。
+
 Since we cannot find this minimum price in freedom through competitive
 bidding, as we do for construction projects, how can we find it?
 
+既然我们不能通过竞标来找到自由的最小代价，如同我们在对待建设工程时那样。
+我们怎样才能找到正确的版权交易方式呢？
+
 One possible method is to reduce copyright privileges in stages, and
 observe the results. By seeing if and when measurable diminutions in
 publication occur, we will learn how much copyright power is really
@@ -637,17 +762,32 @@ observation, not by what publishers say will happen, because they have
 every incentive to make exaggerated predictions of doom if their powers
 are reduced in any way.
 
+一种可能的方式是分阶段减少版权特权并且考察其效果，通过观察出版量是否发生
+了显著减少以及何时发生，我们可以获知为了达到公众预期的目标所真正必需的版
+权权力是多少。我们必须基于真实的观察来评估这一点，而非根据出版商所说将会
+发生什么来进行判断。由于它们会尽其所能做出夸张的悲观预期，如果它们的权力
+以任何形式受到了限制。
+
 Copyright policy includes several independent dimensions, which can be
 adjusted separately. After we find the necessary minimum for one policy
 dimension, it may still be possible to reduce other dimensions of
 copyright while maintaining the desired publication level.
 
+版权政策包含多种独立的方面，它们可以被单独评估。当我们找到了它的某一政策
+方面所必需的最低限度以后，仍然可能继续减少其他方面的版权限制，以维持理想
+的出版量水平。
+
 One important dimension of copyright is its duration, which is now
 typically on the order of a century. Reducing the monopoly on copying to
 ten years, starting from the date when a work is published, would be a
 good first step. Another aspect of copyright, which covers the making of
 derivative works, could continue for a longer period.
 
+版权的一个重要方面是它的持续时期，而现在的版权期限通常是以一个世纪作为数
+量级的。将这种对复制的垄断权缩短到 10 年，从该作品发表日期开始计算可能是
+一种合理的第一步。而版权的另一方面，即覆盖了创作其衍生作品的方面，可以持
+续稍长一段时间。
+
 Why count from the date of publication? Because copyright on unpublished
 works does not directly limit readers’ freedom; whether we are free to
 copy a work is moot when we do not have copies. So giving authors a
@@ -655,6 +795,11 @@ longer time to get a work published does no harm. Authors (who generally
 do own the copyright prior to publication) will rarely choose to delay
 publication just to push back the end of the copyright term.
 
+为何从作品发表之日开始计算？由于未发表的作品的版权并未直接限制读者的自由；
+我们是否拥有复制一篇作品的自由并不重要，如果我们还没有得到它的副本。因此，
+给予作者一段较长时间来发表作品并不会造成伤害。作者们（通常在作品发表之前
+确实拥有其版权）很少会仅仅为了推迟其版权终止的日期而选择延迟发布作品。
+
 Why ten years? Because that is a safe proposal; we can be confident on
 practical grounds that this reduction would have little impact on the
 overall viability of publishing today. In most media and genres,
@@ -665,12 +810,25 @@ copyright should suffice: updated editions are issued regularly, and
 many readers will buy the copyrighted current edition rather than copy a
 ten-year-old public domain version.
 
+为何是 10 年？由于这是一种安全的提案；我们可以基于实践的理由确信这一期限
+的减少并不会为当今的总体出版活力带来什么冲击。在大部分媒体和流派当中，成
+功的作品只在短短的几年之内能够带来丰厚利润，并且即使是成功的作品通常也会
+在远未到达 10 年期限之时绝版。即使是对于参考文献类的作品，它们的有用生命
+周期可能长达几十年，10 年的版权期限也是足够的：由于更新的版本还将正常出版，
+并且很多读者将会愿意购买仍然受到版权保护的当前版本而非复制一份已经处于公
+有领域中的十多年前的旧版的副本。
+
 Ten years may still be longer than necessary; once things settle down,
 we could try a further reduction to tune the system. At a panel on
 copyright at a literary convention, where I proposed the ten-year term,
 a noted fantasy author sitting beside me objected vehemently, saying
 that anything beyond five years was intolerable.
 
+10 年也许仍然比真正必需的时间要长；一旦这个问题得到解决，我们可以尝试进
+一步缩短这一期限来对版权体系进行调整。在一次有关文学作品版权惯例的研讨会
+上，我提出了 10 年期限的提议，坐在我身旁的一位著名科幻作家表示强烈反对，
+他认为超过 5 年期限的任何限制条件都是不可容忍的。
+
 But we don’t have to apply the same time span to all kinds of works.
 Maintaining the utmost uniformity of copyright policy is not crucial to
 the public interest, and copyright law already has many exceptions for
@@ -680,6 +838,12 @@ most expensive regions of the country; it is equally foolish to “pay”
 for all kinds of art with the greatest price in freedom that we find
 necessary for any one kind.
 
+但是，我们不必须对所有类别的作品都采用相同的时间期限。维持版权政策的绝对
+平均对于公众利益并非至关重要，并且版权法对于某些特别应用场景和媒体类型已
+经有了很多例外条款。为每项高速公路工程都按照国内成本最高地区的最困难工程
+所必需的价格标准付费是愚蠢的，而为每种类型的文科作品都按照我们所发现的对
+于任何一类作品所必需的自由代价中的最高标准来“花费”自由同样愚蠢。
+
 So perhaps novels, dictionaries, computer programs, songs, symphonies,
 and movies should have different durations of copyright, so that we can
 reduce the duration for each kind of work to what is necessary for many
@@ -688,6 +852,12 @@ a 20-year copyright, because of the expense of producing them. In my own
 field, computer programming, three years should suffice, because product
 cycles are even shorter than that.
 
+因此也许小说、字典、计算机程序、歌曲、交响乐、电影等等应当具有不同的版权
+期限，于是我们可以将任何一类作品的版权期限缩短到众多待发表的同类作品所必
+需的程度。也许一小时以上的电影可以拥有 20 年的版权，考虑到创作它的开销。
+在我本人的领域，计算机编程，3 年应当足够，由于产品的生命周期远比这一时限
+更短。
+
 Another dimension of copyright policy is the extent of fair use: some
 ways of reproducing all or part of a published work that are legally
 permitted even though it is copyrighted. The natural first step in
@@ -703,6 +873,15 @@ to the general public—when so many of the public want to copy and share,
 and find it so useful, only draconian measures will stop them, and the
 public deserves to get what it wants.
 
+版权政策的另一方面是合理使用的限度：对已发表的作品的全部或部分进行复制的
+某些方式为法律所许可，即使该作品受版权保护。减少这方面的版权权力的第一步
+自然是允许私人进行偶尔的小批量非商业性复制并且对个人用户分发。这将阻止版
+权警察对人们的私人生活的入侵，但对于已发布的作品的销售很可能并不会造成什
+么影响。（可能有必要采取其他法律步骤以保证拆封包装许可不能被用于取代版权
+并且藉此限制这种复制的权利。）Napster 的经验显示我们还应允许面向公众的非
+商业性逐字再分发——由于公众之中有那么多的人想要复制和分享，并且他们发现这
+是那么有用，只有德拉古式的暴政才会禁止这些，而公众理应得到他们所想要的。
+
 For novels, and in general for works that are used for entertainment,
 noncommercial verbatim redistribution may be sufficient freedom for the
 readers. Computer programs, being used for functional purposes (to get
@@ -713,12 +892,22 @@ software users should have. But it may be an acceptable compromise for
 these freedoms to be universally available only after a delay of two or
 three years from the program’s publication.
 
+对于小说及其他被用于消遣的一般作品形式，非商业性的逐字再分发可能足以保证
+读者的自由。计算机程序被用于功能性的目的（用于完成某项任务）需要在此基础
+上的更多自由，包括发布改进版本的自由。参见本书“自由软件定义”章节以获知关
+于计算机软件用户应当享有的自由的解释。而在程序发布之后两三年才能使得这些
+自由全部可获得也不失为一种可接受的妥协。
+
 Changes like these could bring copyright into line with the public’s
 wish to use digital technology to copy. Publishers will no doubt find
 these proposals “unbalanced”; they may threaten to take their marbles
 and go home, but they won’t really do it, because the game will remain
 profitable and it will be the only game in town.
 
+以上这些改变将使得版权回归公众希望使用数字技术进行复制的意愿的轨道上来。
+出版商将会毫无疑问地发现这些提案是“不公平”的；它们也许会威胁退出出版业，
+但却不会真正如此做，由于这一行业仍然有利可图，并且仍将是最好的行业。
+
 As we consider reductions in copyright power, we must make sure media
 companies do not simply replace it with end-user license agreements. It
 would be necessary to prohibit the use of contracts to apply
@@ -726,8 +915,15 @@ restrictions on copying that go beyond those of copyright. Such
 limitations on what mass-market nonnegotiated contracts can require are
 a standard part of the US legal system.
 
+在我们思考如何减少版权权力的同时，我们必须保证媒体公司不会简单地将其改为
+最终用户许可协议（EULA）。有必要禁止使用合同来对版权范围以外的复制施加限
+制。对于面向大量最终客户的不可谈判的合同所能要求的东西进行限制是美国法律
+体系中的一个标准组成部分。
+
 ### A Personal Note {#a-personal-note .subheading}
 
+### 作者注记
+
 I am a software designer, not a legal scholar. I’ve become concerned
 with copyright issues because there’s no avoiding them in the world of
 computer networks, such as the Internet. As a user of computers and
@@ -737,6 +933,12 @@ of the author as semidivine creator, often cited by publishers to
 justify increased copyright powers for authors—powers which these
 authors will then sign away to publishers.
 
+我是软件设计者而非法学学者。我之所以对版权问题感到担忧是由于这在计算机网
+络世界，例如万维网中，是无法回避的。作为计算机和网络的 30 多年的用户，我
+衡量了我们已经失去的以及将要失去的自由的价值。作为一位作者，我有权拒绝将
+作者比作半神的创造者这一富有幻想性的神话，而出版商经常援引这一点作为依据
+以支持增加作者的版权权力——然而作者随后就会把这些权力出让给出版商。
+
 Most of this article consists of facts and reasoning that you can check,
 and proposals on which you can form your own opinions. But I ask you to
 accept one thing on my word alone: that authors like me don’t deserve
@@ -744,6 +946,11 @@ special power over you. If you wish to reward me further for the
 software or books I have written, I would gratefully accept a check—but
 please don’t surrender your freedom in my name. @endgroup
 
+本文的大部分内容包含了您可以查证的事实和推理，还有您可以用于构建您自己的
+想法的提议。但是我再次请求您接受我个人的这样一个看法：诸如我这样的作者并
+不应该拥有凌驾于您之上的权力。如果您想要对我所编写的软件或书籍表示感谢，
+我将会心存感激地接受一张支票——但请您不要以我的名义放弃您的自由。
+
 <div class="footnote">
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -756,13 +963,12 @@ please don’t surrender your freedom in my name. @endgroup
 
 ### [(2)](#DOCF2)
 
-@raggedright See Julian Sanchez’s article “The Trouble with ‘Balance’
+@raggedright 参见 Julian Sanchez 的文章 “The Trouble with ‘Balance’
 Metaphors” (4 February 2011,
 [http://juliansanchez.com/2011/02/04/the-trouble-with-balance-\
 metaphors/](http://juliansanchez.com/2011/02/04/the-trouble-with-balance-%3Cbr%3Emetaphors/))
-for an examination of “how the analogy between sound judgment and
-balancing weights may constrain our thinking in unhealthy ways.” @end
-raggedright
+以获得关于“合理判断与平衡权重之间的类比能够怎样以有害的方式限制我们的思考”这一问题的深入调查。
+@endraggedright
 
 ### [(3)](#DOCF3)
 
@@ -778,13 +984,11 @@ Joint Resolutions,” 2 March 1995, p. S3390,
 
 ### [(5)](#DOCF5)
 
-@raggedright See @pageref{Protection} for why use the term “protect”
-should be avoided in connection with copyright. @end raggedright
+@raggedright 参见 @pageref{Protection} 以获知为何在与版权相关联时应当避免使用“保护”一词。 @end raggedright
 
 ### [(6)](#DOCF6)
 
-@raggedright Jack Valenti was a longtime president of the Motion Picture
-Association of America. @end raggedright
+@raggedright Jack Valenti 是美国电影协会（MPAA）常任主席。 @end raggedright
 
 ### [(7)](#DOCF7)
 
@@ -795,25 +999,22 @@ p. H9952,
 
 ### [(8)](#DOCF8)
 
-@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary-drm.html> for
-more on this issue. @end raggedright
+@raggedright 参见 <http://gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary-drm.html> 以获得关于这一问题的更多信息。 @end raggedright
 
 ### [(9)](#DOCF9)
 
-@raggedright See “Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It’s a Seductive
-Mirage”( @pageref{Not IPR}) for an explanation of why this term is
-problematic. @end raggedright
+@raggedright 参见 “Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It’s a Seductive
+Mirage”( @pageref{Not IPR}) 一文以获知为何这一短语是有问题的。 @end raggedright
 
 ### [(10)](#DOCF10)
 
-@raggedright Since renamed to the unpronounceable CBDTPA, for which a
-good mnemonic is “Consume, But Don’t Try Programming Anything,” but it
-really stands for the “Consumer Broadband and Digital Television
-Promotion Act.” @end raggedright
+@raggedright 由于它被更名为不可拼读的 CBDTPA，一种有助于理解和记忆的解读是
+“消灭但不要尝试编程法案”（Consume, But Don’t Try Programming Anything），
+而其真正名称是“消费者宽带和数字电视促进法案”（Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act） @end raggedright
 
 ### [(11)](#DOCF11)
 
-If you would like to help, I recommend the web sites
+如果您真的想要提供帮助，我推荐以下网站：
 <http://defectivebydesign.org>, <http://publicknowledge.org>, and
 <http://eff.org>.
 
@@ -823,3 +1024,5 @@ If you would like to help, I recommend the web sites
 
 This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using
 [*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\
+
+汉化：Nadebula